Carrier focuses on a historical detective story, which begins when Marcus Aurelius' surrounded and unsupplied troops in central Europe were rescued
from crushing defeat by a thunderstorm. They attributed this timely rain to the services of an Egyptian sorcerer in their company, who called upon
the gods for help.

The Christian writers of the era nearly rewrote history to make this a Christian miracle, and indeed, succeeded for about a thousand years, only for
the truth to creep back into Western Europe with a single rediscovered Greek-language document. The document was the key to unlock surivivng physical
evidence about what really happened, and that the original religious interpretation of the incident was in fact non-Christian.

Apart from some little PG-13 locker-room langauge, and a few ad hominem swipes by Carrier at long-dead opponents, I don't see why a living
Christian couldn't enjoy and maybe learn from the talk. For a counterapologist, it is a nice example of how to make a case with power and without
rancor, apart from the few and flaccid sophomoric lapses already noted. And regardless of religious perspective, it is a nice explanation of how
historians think, which is a useful skill if you're interested in conspiracies.

The Christian writers of the era nearly rewrote history to make this a Christian miracle, and indeed, succeeded for about a thousand years, only for
the truth to creep back into Western Europe with a single rediscovered Greek-language document. The document was the key to unlock surivivng physical
evidence about what really happened, and that the original religious interpretation of the incident was in fact non-Christian.

Can you explain and describe to us what this "surviving physical evidence" was and how it proved anything?

We all know that back in the day of Moses, that there was a magic competition that took place between Moses and Egyptian sorcerers to prove who's God
had the most power, so how does this compare?

Carrier talks about how to think critically about history generally, using miracles as an entertaining example. Builds on his talk last year on
Bayes' Theorem, but this time it's more about method than math, and surveys a lot of real-world examples of miracles from the ancient world (pagan,
Jewish and Christian). Summarizes some of what is covered in much more detail in his book.

This wouldn't be the first time history was hijacked by religion. It certainly won't be the last. I'll be giving this a look see. Thanks for
posting it.

I think many of the miracles from the bible have very natural explanations. Jesus' miracles for example: walking on water, turning water into wine,
and feeding 5,000 people with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread can all be explained naturally.

Jesus walking on water is an attribute to the sun, whenever the sun rises or sets on the beach it looks as though the sun touches down then "walks"
over the horizon, or walks from over the horizon up into the sky.

Turning water into wine can also be attributed to the sun. With water and the sun, a grape vine will grow which you in turn can turn into wine.

Feeding 5,000 can be attributed to life itself. With two fish (male and female) many fish will be born and then more from them and so on. With the
seed from a loaf of bread you can make many stalks of wheat which in turn you can turn into more bread and so on until you have enough to feed 5,000
people.

I don't believe Jesus actually did any of those things, only that they were added in later to make Jesus seem like more than a regular man.

ETA: As for the title, pagans are the ones who hijacked Christianity, not the other way around.

As the (later added) title suggests, Meditations isn't a military memoir, so I am unsure why you would expect to find this battle discussed
there.

We all know that back in the day of Moses, ...

Marcus Aurelius is a better documented figure than Moses, and more recent. There was no "magician's contest." An incident involving pagans following
their religion was retold as if it had happened to Christians following their religion. By an amazing coincidence, no pagan's written report of the
incident survived in the West, and even the existence of a non-Christian side of the story was unknown until the rediscovery of the Greek written
heritage during the Renaissance.

Ironically, that first Greek report quoted the pagan report in order to refute it. However, the physical evidence favors the pagan account, although
that wouldn't have been known until relatively recently.

AndyMayhew

While a rainstorm is obviously a natural occurrence, this one's timing (both as to tactical importance and by following the sorcerer's invocation) and
the asymmetric specificity of damages and benefits (the thirsty Romans got water to drink while the enemy's battle gear was destroyed or neutralized)
explain the imputation of supernatural agency to its occurence.

A lot of people think that way today, here's a famous example, only about 70 years old:

It stopped raining, the beleaguered American position at Bastogne was resupplied by air, and then some serious German butt was kicked.

"Miracle" just means a remarkable event (Look!), usually one for which a supernatural explanation is offered, and once offered, whether or not that
explanation prevails. The remarkable ancient event in question really happened, and an explanation of the expected kind was offered, twice in this
case. I am not proposing that either "side's" theory be accepted.

The conspiracy was for one side to "steal" the other side's miracle, and the effort was wildly successful for an amazingly long time. It's >ahem< a
bit of a miracle that they ever got caught.

The reason I raised such a question is because it doesn't appear through Aurelius' writings that he himself gave much notion to the idea that
"gods" were the ones doing anything.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues
you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have
lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." ~ Marcus Aurelius

In fact, some of his writing tends to indicate that he might have been somewhat frustrated about the Pagans and the Christians constantly fighting
over whether or not the Pagan gods were to blame for the constant earthquakes, famines, pestilences and plagues that were going on during those
times.

Regarding some of the things Aurelius claims he has learned in life...

"From Diognetus, not to busy myself about trifling things, and not to give credit to what was said by miracle-workers and jugglers about incantations
and the driving away of daemons and such things;..."

Unless there was any writing from Aurelius himself on the matter, I wouldn't know who to believe.

It's obvious from my research that the Pagans and Christians were very much at odds with each other during this time period and both were going out
of their way to draw attention to their religions.

This guy seems to have his head on VERY STRAIGHT. Why would you not be a "fan"?

I'm OK with where his head is

. I am not a "Christ myther," although he is a very reasonable one (and he may not like that term, because of so
many unreasonable ones using it). Also, his recent embrace of Bayesian reasoning (which he skips over in the talk in the OP) leads him to make some
altogether untenable claims about it, although I do think familiarity with what Bayesian reasoning has to say about evidence is vital. It's good, but
it's not that good.

So, there you have it. We have our disagreements, and yet often with an "although." Hope that clears up my remark for you.

Anyway, awesome new-to-me "source", thanks very much for posting it!

You're welcome. I am happy to have introduced you; he is definitely worth a look.

Deetermined

Marcus Aurelius is a very attractive figure.

As to what he believed about the incident... well, it is his victory column that provides us the picture, and yet it is one picture among many there.
So, that's very Marcus Aurelius - whatever its personal impact on him, the incident happened, it is acknowledged, and it takes its place within the
context of the larger campaign.

Did pagans generally "believe" in the existence of Hermes-Thoth (in this case) the way that living Protestants "believe" in the existence of
Jesus? It's not obvious that they did in any large proportion, especially in the upper crust. Marcus' "experience" of his gods might have been
very subtle, and directed at something subtler than the modern style of God, too.

Whatever his personal religious beliefs, Marcus had an empire to run. A story about being favored by a headliner supernatural power couldn't have
hurt his political stature. The Egyptian connection was good, too - people are still fascinated with Egypt, its magic and its exoticism. Back then,
probably even more so.

It's obvious from my research that the Pagans and Christians were very much at odds with each other during this time period and both were
going out of their way to draw attention to their religions.

Spiders in a bottle; two different species. Only one comes out alive. I think the hijacking is understandable in an "all's fair in love and war"
way, and it was war, alternating hot and cold. But understanding the motives of the players doesn't detract from the story, IMO.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.